#1) Obama had to be striangulated to make a decision on Afghanistan...you know the one he supposedly believed in-remember the leaks to the press?

So who was that-the Pentagon, Rahm Emanuel...?

#2) By saying anything, because he doesn't trust the American public with whatever his agenda is-there are constant changes of position just start with what he has said about Missile Defense and go forward he has made George Bush look -

consistent, reliable and like a man who told you what he was going to do, in a way that everyone could understand, and followed through.

By comparison what you get with Obama, is obfuscation, nuance-and no one can really predict what he will do because-

5, or whatever number we're on now.He has destroyed the pie-in-the-sky illusions of leftards everywhere and breathed new life into conservatism and interest in the Constitution. These sound like multiple things but they're really all of a piece.

This is what happens when you elect Marxists to leadership. Now we can say btdt but my T shirt was repo'd when I couldn't pay the bill because of two years of unemployment.

Obama has certainly not "rehabilitated" George Bush's criminal policies, or reputation. He has merely succeeded in destroying his own name and reputation, and joins Bush as a discredit to America and as a war criminal.

I was going to point out that leftists would never consider Bush rehabilitated, because that would require some form of reassessment on their part, and that turning on Obama would be the easier path, but Cook's post already made that point for me.

I will give you credit for consistency, Robert. I would almost say you were 'staying the course.'

By putting his name on many of the policies that George Bush was condemned for adopting, he has rehabilitated the reputation of George Bush.

I would rephrase the above to read "he has begun the process of rehabilitating the reputation of George Bush." I think that there will be additional rehabilitation from Bush policies that Obama has explicitly not continued, and which fail.

These issues of guerrilla War in the Iraq and Afghan areas are the least important thing to Obama. Win or lose who cares since they never end. They are only his opportunities to wear the President's clothes and look just like Bush while he steadily oversees the destruction of 60 years of US alliances and finishes wiring the US economy for demolition. Remember, Obama is a pragmatist, and his goals include remaining undercover, dressed up to look like Bush, as long as possible.

The fact that Obama has mimicked Bush every step of the way in the War on Terror, as well as his attempts to expand and extend Patriot Act-style domestic surveillance programs, has had at least one undeniable effect. It's been shown that all the "anti-war" Dems were complete and utter frauds. The constant longing on the Left for someone to hate was satisfied when they had a war to "protest". It gave them license to scream at and disparage America, so they did. There was never any rational or honorable opposition to the war, it was all just play-acting by intellectually stunted attention-seekers and malevolent poltical schemers.I want to know when the push for a war crimes trial for Obama will begin. Until then, the Left has zero credibility.

The result was entirely predictable and is just further evidence that the left has no coherent foreign policy. It's all based on fantasist pipe-dreams about conducting an idealist and ethical foreign policy that puts our nation's interests in the back seat to the interests of oppressed non-white people in the third world. It sounds so nice and selfless, but it's utterly delusional.

No elected official is going to enter office and wreak such havoc on his own nation, not even if he sincerely believes in it before the election. I imagine Obama entered office and reached an "Oh shit" epiphany as he started getting briefing after briefing by the CIA and DoD.

Seriously, think of the shit that came out of Obama's mouth before the election. He's going to renegotiate NAFTA? Get tough on China? Invade Pakistan to get Al Qaeda? Create peace in the Levant? Leave Iraq ASAP? Shut down Gitmo?

Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together understands why such stances are patently retarded. Our nation hasn't gotten to this place because our previous leaders were flat out evil; we're here because the situation is always complex.

The liberals want to say that Bush was evil and stupid, and therefore everything he did was evil and stupid, but in reality his foreign policy was pretty robust and effective.

Garage is correct, as he often is in stating facts, if not in analysis from facts. The other difference is in the Iranian superpower issue. Obama supports the Iranians having a deliverable U-235 device to free him from the USA's traditional Israel client state alliance. He has already written off our alliance with the UK and France. The wonder is where he expects the USA to get new friends when they have all watched him abandon our oldest friends. The Islamic Jihad guys will not take us in as their new best friends. So Obama is either crazy or he is a fifth columnist attacking us from within.

"I am always amazed at people who believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will 'end' if the US simply leaves.

In this view, the presence of the US is the cause of the conflict. We simply leave and the violence ends."

There is an old saying, "you may not be interested in war, but sometimes war is interested in you". Many people in this country refuse to accept that. Americans have also post 1960s become the most self obsessed people on earth. Many seem to think that all good and evil in the world is the direct result of American actions. And that by implication, America can through its actions control everything that happens to it.

And I'm still waiting for those with "fierce moral urgency" re banning waterboarding to comment on Team Obama's SHOW TRIAL of KSM.

Because if you're really so concerned about Principle and America's image, how can you not give full throated opposition to an Amercian justice system where the outcome has already been determined and declared by POTUS?

John...One way to look at the US foreign policy would be as a local police force in the COPS show. In the nice parts of town we have friends and we are welcome, but we are blamed by the bad boys for everything over in the bad parts of town. But if we were to fire the police force, then the whole town would soon be in the hurt locker. I really believe Obama wants to see the US cease and desist its role as a world police. If so, then let's quit the charade and get our Afghan mountain valley IED ambush targeted Brigades back home. They will have plenty to do in Central and south America. But this ONLY works when we have drilled ourselves on our territory into oil independence. And Obama opposses that with every fiber in his being. So once again, Obama earns a Fifth Columnist tag.

1000. Barry is to George Soros as Jimmy Carter was to David Rockefeller. Both bought the Presidency and put their bought-and-paid-for empty suit in it. The difference is Rockefeller did not want to destroy the United States economically.

rdkraus said...

3. Allowed Navy to shoot pirates in the head.

Still say that was the captain's initiative. Barry was making sounds like he wanted to negotiate.

Joe said...

I just see a lot of Hay-Tuhs here...Barak Obama is the kindest, wiset, most wonderfullest guy Ev-UH!

That's why the birthers want to see his certificate. The name on it is Raymond Shaw.

(If his mother turns out to be Angela Lansbury doing a killer Hillary imitation, we need to start talking impeachment.)

"I really believe Obama wants to see the US cease and desist its role as a world police."

That's not America's role, except insofar as we have designated it to ourselves, and even then we only "police" those parts of the world we imagine we can easily contain and where resources exist that we covet...in other words, we "police" those parts of the world in which we have (or desire) a material interest.

We police the world the way the way the Mafia provides "protection" to businesses from whom they have extorted tribute.

The Obama led military has killed or captured more Taliban and Al Queda operatives in the first year of his tenure than George W. Bush in his eight years.

For debate’s sake, let’s assume that true. Do you suppose those programs and intel that allowed such a result just [poof] appeared on January 20th last year? Or, more likely, did President Obama “inherit” a set of programs and operations already in place that allowed for such results? Regardless of your politics, you have to admit that there have been far too many “amateur” hour moments during the first year of this administration’s tenure. Do you really think they were uncharacteristically brilliant in their handling of military tactics and operations?

My point being…if he inherited the job, he inherited everything, good and bad. Again, this all assumes your claim is accurate, which I’m willing to keep an open mind on.

Princess Sarah during a speech in Alberta, Canada (where, by the way, she and her family get some of their health care):

She complained about the "establishment," this woman who once ran to be second-in-command of the largest establishment in the world;

she mocked the press, speaking as a correspondent to America's biggest news network;

she chastised critics who dwelt on her children's lives, after introducing to the audience her daughter, Piper, who spent the duration of the speech fidgeting near the stage.

And the politician who championed the average working man and woman spent an hour before her appearance locked away in a private VIP reception posing for photos with guests who had paid hundreds of dollars for the privilege; after her speech, she was hustled by handlers out a back door.

Oh, and she also said she was in good company when writing notes on her hand...because God did it, too.

Lincolntf "I think what Jeremy is unwittingly saying is that the only success story that Obama can claim is a direct result of the "Bush Doctrine"."

No, what I said was pretty direct and accurate: Obama has done more to cripple the Taliban and Al Queda in one year than little Georgie did in eight years.

Little Georgie's "doctrine" was based on lies and misinformation, and now the American soldiers who are in harm's way are paying for his misdeeds. And anybody who thinks Obama could have just picked up and left Iraq or Afghanistan the day he took office is just full of shit.

He said he would get us out...and he will.

You can also "spin" Bush's fuck ups any way you want, but there are over 4,000 families that have lost loved ones to this fiasco...and don't forget the 30,000 wounded...because they'll have the rest of their lives to remember.

Defending Bush at this stage of the game is just partisan bullshit politics.

Assuming I'm defending Bush based on my previous comment is just partisan bullshit politics. Your problem is that you cannot discuss things without looking through the lens of your own political beliefs. There are plenty of left-leaning commentors that inhabit this blog that can. You never seem to be able to.

The total number of dead and captured is highly subjective, if memory serves. You have to discount all the insurgents in Iraq as non-terrorist to begin with. It doesn't matter, though, because you don't want to debate. You want to score points.

Obama is desperately trying to cling to Bush's successes in the MIdEast in order to have something, anything at all, that he can call an accomplishment. He'll obviously never get the unemployment or deficit numbers down to their Budh-era levels, so the only thing he has left is drone strikes.He's a sad, hollow man with a long couple years ahead of him, and he knows it. The fact that he's politically profiting from our soldiers is a travesty, but there's nothing to be done about it.

You should also consider that the commanders on the ground have stated that the scheduled withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq is predicated on what conditions on the ground are, which of course implies, we may be there longer than 'a year from now' as Jeremy predicts. In fact, its a good bet that we'll be there in some military capacity for quite some time.

Scott M said..."I thought that Iraq was this administrations greatest accomplishment. What did I miss?"

Like I said: YOU can spin Bush's initial and aftermath fuck ups any way you want, but people who read know exactly what he got us into and if you think history will somehow prove him correct, you're dreaming.

Right now, if Bush and of course, his puppet-master "Dick," could go back in time...you actually think they would handle the Iraqi situation in the same manner?

The fact that you and others refuse to acknowledge it was a massive mistake is indicative of the head in the sand mindset the conservatives live by to this day.

I suggest that America used NATO to initiate war in Afghanistan for its own ends. I do not suggest this is necessarily so in all NATO actions.

I suggest you're something of a conspiracy theorist then. From a historical perspective 'all NATO actions' consist of two (2) (Bosnia and Afghanistan). If you take an opportunity to read the NATO charter you will see that NATO members are obligated to aid another member who suffers an attack. As I said, Bosnia was not then or is now a member of NATO thus NATO intervention in that conflict was illegal from the standpoint of its charter.

Afghanistan on the other hand is a legal NATO operation as the defacto government of Afghanistan at that time, aided, harbored and sheltered the individuals who attacked us on 9/11. This of course is academic unless you're one of those who think we attacked outselves on 9/11 so we could invade a godforsaken hellhole to plunder its vast resources of unobtanium.

edutcher said..."That's why the birthers want to see his certificate. The name on it is Raymond Shaw."

And you wonder why I say many here are fucking morons?

After all of this time, between McCain and every other person who would love to prove the man wasn't born in Hawaii...with all of the reseources at hand...nobody has presented evidence of such a ridiculous claim.

Yet, here we have this idiot continuing to throw out tea bagger/birther denigration of our own President.

Your reading comprehension is a little challenged today. Either that or you're being purposefully obtuse.

My comment about Biden's claim that Iraq is this administration's greatest accomplishment had only to do with the use of the word by a previous commenter (included in my comment, btw) calling Iraq a fiasco.

Did you miss that?

For the record, I think Bush and crew handled the whole thing very, very poorly in nearly every facet. The fact that our military is so supremely effective, even given incredibly difficult tasks and minimal resources speaks a great deal about our men and women...of which I had flesh and blood serving (still serving). How am I spinning that to be defending Bush?

Okay, a hypothetical. I'll bite. If they could go back in time would they handle things differently? I don't know...are you giving them the "if I knew then what I know now?" scenario? If it were me, not on your life. Them, who's to say? Your loaded question begs the answer anyway and, again, you're not here for debate, you're here to score points and get "attaboys" from like-minded bloggers.

Scott - I also think Bush handled the Iraq war horribly. But it's like casting pearls before swine to debate the intricacies of different Iraq strategies with lefties. They are only interested in scoring political points.

F.e., I believe Bush should have immediately divided Iraq into 3 countries(Kurdistan, Sunni-stan, Shia-stan), pulled our troops into bases and let them have their bloody civil war. We'd have 5000 less dead troops now and a cleaner situation. But Bush just HAD to be a "nation builder". He failed to realize you can't build a nation out of Kurds, Sunnis and Shia where they're not at each others throats constantly.

Scott - I also think Bush handled the Iraq war horribly. But it's like casting pearls before swine to debate the intricacies of different Iraq strategies with lefties. They are only interested in scoring political points.

Few Presidents have handled wars in a non-horrible manner. Aside from the Span-American War and Gulf War I, the rest of have ranged from controlled disasters to a complete FUBAR. The saving grace is that we were never sitting on the surrender side of the table.

F.e., I believe Bush should have immediately divided Iraq into 3 countries(Kurdistan, Sunni-stan, Shia-stan), pulled our troops into bases and let them have their bloody civil war. We'd have 5000 less dead troops now and a cleaner situation. But Bush just HAD to be a "nation builder".

1) Proving it's a good thing you have no control or national policy; 2) Because you're an idiot.

Shi’i Iraq would have become a haven for Iranian terrorist and more than likely an Iranian proxy state, a la Syria…advancing Iranian national/theological interests in the area.

Sunni Iraq would have been a revanchist state dedicated to “restoring” Iraqi Sovereignty (read Sunni Dominance), constantly trying to destabilize Kurdistan, and more than likely invading Shi’i Iraq, in order to secure Basra and the oil fields, there. The Sunni Arabs would have had the explicit support of other Gulf States, leading to a very nasty “civil war” between the Gulf Cooperation Council and its Sunni Proxies and the Shi’i portion of Iraq, backed by Teheran. The end result would have been, Shi’i victory over the Sunnis (which is what happened in the AQI/Sunni insurgency against the US and Iraqi-Shi’i majority government). Only in this case rather than the Shi’i victory being more political than military it would have included a military occupation of the Central portion of Iraq by the Shi’i and a long-standing and bloody insurrection.

Kurdistan, MIGHT have survived, but more than likely would have been destabilized by the Sunni “Rump State” and then invaded and occupied by Turkey and Teheran. Neither of which are going to acquiesce to an independent Kurdistan on their Kurdish borders. You might have missed it, but the Turks fought a twenty year war against the Kurds in Turkey, killing about 20,000 to 40,000 civilians in the process and the Iranians haven’t been much better to THEIR Kurds, either.

And all this slaughter would have been going on around the US troops you have so conveniently left in the bases!

So I didn’t realize that Vice President Biden, read Ann’s blog.

Hey Slow Joe, your idea was stupid then and it’s just as stupid, NOW.

“Nation-building” is the ONLY thing that is going to improve the lot of the Middle East and reduce the threat of terror and violence against Western influences. Or is democracy only for White people and a few Yellow people?

It seems to do somewhat ok, relatively speaking, in brown skinned Central and South America. Success or failure of democracy tends to have more with culture than skin color. Much of the Middle East is still tribal in nature and coupled with an intolerant fundamentalist religion that perdominates secular life, democracy is already two strikes going up to bat.

I should clarify 'western style democracy' which is exemplified by (classical) liberalism, free markets, rule of law and individual property rights. You might one day see a unified Iraq, Egypt, Morroco etc, in terms of being democratic but I'll wager its still won't be a very nice place to live.

Aturius, more of a rhetorical quesion, many onthe Left see "race" as the critical factor and those that oppose them as racists. I just wondered why we'd leve brown people to suffer under tyranny, disparate impact, unless we're racists.....

Joe said..."Aturius, more of a rhetorical quesion, many onthe Left see "race" as the critical factor and those that oppose them as racists. I just wondered why we'd leve brown people to suffer under tyranny, disparate impact, unless we're racists....."

edutcher said..."That's why the birthers want to see his certificate. The name on it is Raymond Shaw."

And you wonder why I say many here are fucking morons?

It was a joke, doofus. If you go back to my post, you'll see I played off Joe's line "Barak Obama is the kindest, wiset, most wonderfullest guy Ev-UH!". That's what all the captured Americans were brainwashed to say about Laurence Harvey's character, Raymond Shaw, in "The Manchurian Candidate".

Alex said..." No no no!! According Jeremy, Obama is handling Iraq/Afghanistan in a wondrous way!"

Alex, you're such an asshole.

Alex may, indeed, be an asshole. Who knows? You're certainly capable, demonstrably, of giving the best assholes on this blog a run for their money.

I never said anything of the kind.

The single most objectively true thing you've said today...however...

I merely posted comments relating to his administration having successfully apprehended or killed many of the Taliban and Al Queda people over the course of his first year.

Poor choice of words. What you did was...

The Obama led military has killed or captured more Taliban and Al Queda operatives in the first year of his tenure than George W. Bush in his eight years.

...draw a direct contrasting of the two administrations and used a time scale vs results lens to prove your point about how much better the Obama administration is handling things. In that case, you invited the sarcastic response Alex made. You didn't cite any sources for your numbers, either, after challenged to do so.

You then made a completely subjective comment that Alex and other don't think this is important. First, we have to think it's true. Source your numbers.

You also didn't answer a rebuttal to a point you made specifically in my direction. Here was my answer to your challenge.

My comment about Biden's claim that Iraq is this administration's greatest accomplishment had only to do with the use of the word by a previous commenter (included in my comment, btw) calling Iraq a fiasco.

Scott - I certainly did "draw a direct contrasting of the two administrations and used a time scale vs results lens to prove your point about how much better the Obama administration is handling things."

And it's true, too.

The fact that YOU and others refuse to acknowledge this fact or that he's doing a pretty good job of trying to clean up Bush's mess is just the same ol', same 'ol from the right. No matter what President Obama says or does, you and others here criticize or reject him at every turn. (And I don't care what you or the others say; it's ridiculous to be so negative about his every decision after one year in office.)

Bush should have never gone into Iraq, Americans know it, and the entire world knows it.

As to my other point of whether he would do it again: What do you think the American people would do it given the chance...knowing what they know now? Think they would rise to the occasion and give a thumbs up to the invasion?

They were never more than patsies. They were the creation of a media class that wanted the election to go to the Democrats. That goal having been achieved, the cameras have been turned off and the protesters disappear like they never existed.

I don't read every comment, but you could have referenced it if it was so important to your point.

It was from YOUR comment. You don't read your own comments? And, further, I did reference it in my comment. I didn't put the time/date stamp on it, thusly,

3/8/10 12:39 PM

...but I figured you would know your own damned comment.

As BFBC2 says when you die on your own grenade, EPIC FAIL.

The fact that YOU and others refuse to acknowledge this fact or that he's doing a pretty good job of trying to clean up Bush's mess is just the same ol', same 'ol from the right. No matter what President Obama says or does, you and others here criticize or reject him at every turn.

Holy shit. I've asked you three times in this thread to cite your numbers and you have absolutely refused to do so. I even said, much, much earlier, that I was open-minded about it. I asked to see the numbers. You haven't provided them so how in the world do you claim that I refuse to acknowledge it?

Super-mega-epic-fail.

You seem to have some smarts about you, but damn, they have a hard time getting out with all the bullshit clogging every orifice you use when at the computer.

Scott said... #5. By being cynical and self-possessed to the extreme, he has rehabilitated the reputation of Richard Nixon.

----------------I think Nixon's reputation was already being rehabilitated thanks to the mess a long string of Presidents after him from Ford to Obama have put the country in. Nixon, the last President who balanced a budget, had a trade surplus, and created lasting diplomacy and domestic programs now part of everyday life - simply looks good in comparison to the others. Even Reagan and Clinton - who I thought were very good Presidents on some things - but were the people who played a big part in the long term ruin. Supply side voodoo economics, "deficits don't matter", huge Gov't growth under Reagan & Clinton, dereg the banks and Wall Street, normalizing trade with China, globalization, a pathological belief that free trade creates great piles of well-paying high tech jobs...And in that period, you had the mild disasters of Ford, the worse disasters of Carter and Bush II.

====================="TMink said... 3. President Obama has done a better job pursuing our interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan better than I had any hope to believe he would. I wonder if McCain would have done as well."

I think not. Remember too the half-senile guy was also calling for troops to be sent to Georgia to "advise" Georgians against Russian forces - and telling audiences we had to get ready for full War with Iran - unless they "completely backed down".

I don't know if these big changes of heart in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq were in part long-term things started under Bush that Obama is getting credit for - but some of it is clearly Obama's people saying that the days of blind commitment of US men and treasure, a blind eye's view to corruption and inaction - were over.It wasn't enough for Karzai and al-Maliki, and husband-of-Bhutto to spout the elixir of "Freedom for the noble freedom lovers" Bush's ears craved to hear in order to get pallets of money and US solsiers doing what the natives wouldn't do for themselves.

Ending the open-ended commitments to Bush's "dear friends" has indeed given those "non-friends" of the new Administration - a new clarity.

Eric said..."They were never more than patsies. They were the creation of a media class that wanted the election to go to the Democrats. That goal having been achieved, the cameras have been turned off and the protesters disappear like they never existed."

The fact that Obama is indeed pulling the troops and initiating other means of aggression via drones and actual intelligence gathering and apprehension makes it less likely we would see massive demonstrations.

The right just likes to bitch and whine about anything relating to what they don't already believe or want to be so.

You said this: "My comment about Biden's claim that Iraq is this administration's greatest accomplishment had only to do with the use of the word by a previous commenter (included in my comment, btw) calling Iraq a fiasco."

I was referring to this: "had only to do with the use of the word by a previous commenter."

You'll have to help me out, then, because either we've reached a "two ships" moment here, or one of us is a complete dumbass. I'm understandably biased toward it being you.

I referred to a comment you made...then you say you didn't read your own comment. Let's just stop there and get back to the original point.

You claimed I was defending Bush when all (all...in the comment's entirety) was to point out that you had called Iraq a fiasco. I pointed out that Biden claimed it was the greatest achievement. Biden is calling your fiasco a greatest achievement. I'm not sure I can spell it out any more clearly.

The fact that Obama is indeed pulling the troops and initiating other means of aggression via drones and actual intelligence gathering and apprehension makes it less likely we would see massive demonstrations.

Pulling troops from where? He's just moving them from Iraq to Afghanistan, on George Bush's schedule.

And the drone attacks have increased for no other reason than production lines have been running around the clock and we finally have enough to spare for that kind of thing. Which, by the way, started in August of 2008 when Bush was still president.

Obama became President a little over a year ago, and you act as if he could merely pack and bring everybody home within a 12-14 month period. go get the cigs and beer Jeremy, remember we were on the EIGHTEEN MONTH PLAN, when Obama was campaigning....we wuld bring 1-2 brigades home per month and be gone in 18 months or less! You mihgt have forgotten I haven't....

I made that point way upthread, but it's been lost on him. I also stated, Jeremy, that I had a lot of problems with Bush's handling of the war. How that's defending him, I don't know.

I'm extremely skeptical of your claim and you refuse to cite your source. Just typing numbers on the screen doesn't mean anything. Provide a citation, a link, anything, and I'll give it fair consideration. Fair. You know, that which you appear to have no sense of whatsoever?

Don't order me off to find the data. You bring the point to the table, you bring your data to back it up.

One last point...I said that coming to your conclusion had everything to do with who was counted. Who are you counting? As a side note, it doesn't matter what war we're talking about. Accurate body counts of the enemy are nearly impossible and always subject to political football. Just fyi.

And, playing it your way, the Obama-led military is also responsible for a record number of civilian Afghans being killed and wounded.

And, playing it your way, the Obama-led military is also responsible for a record number of civilian Afghans being killed and wounded.

I think that's important too. Do you? It's an important statistic in Jeremy's world IF the Administration killing them has an "R" after their name, otherwise can't make an omellette without breaking eggs.

WV "Bowdon" man what a line for a thread about Obama's Foreign Policy.

Joe - I realize President Obama would love to get everybody out within a specific time period, he's spent a great deal of time conferring and obviously accepting recommendations from his military leaders that run contrary to his hoped for plans.

But I also remember little Georgie saying he wasn't a "nation builder" leading up to his election...and look what we got.

He and his puppet-master "Dick" also said plenty about massive stockpiles of anthrax, chemical wagons, WMD, aluminum tubes designed to become missiles, mushroom clouds and imminent attacks via Saddam.

Were you just as offended by his words as you appear to be about President Obama's?

I'd even debate "leaders", Jeremy, 'cause I think they rounded up or killed plenty of those back in '01 as well.

And, FYI, I'm nowhere near right wing, I just like to get the facts right when possible. As for ugly, well, that's pretty subjective... You, however, with your ad hominem attacks, CLEARLY don't play well with others! Lighten up, man!

he's spent a great deal of time conferring and obviously accepting recommendations from his military leaders that run contrary to his hoped for plans.

Funny now he's POTUS, REALITY counts, eh? It was just as foolish and stupid in 2008 as 2009 and yet he and his supporters had no trouble supporting a dumb idea.

But I also remember little Georgie saying he wasn't a "nation builder" leading up to his election...and look what we got. You might have noticed a little thing called 9/11 occurred shortly after Bush's Inaugauration.

he's spent a great deal of time conferring and obviously accepting recommendations from his military leaders that run contrary to his hoped for plans.

Funny now he's POTUS, REALITY counts, eh? It was just as foolish and stupid in 2008 as 2009 and yet he and his supporters had no trouble supporting a dumb idea.

But I also remember little Georgie saying he wasn't a "nation builder" leading up to his election...and look what we got. You might have noticed a little thing called 9/11 occurred shortly after Bush's Inauguration. Prior to 9/11 “Nation0-building” seemed to be a boon-doggle that involved NATO, the UN and NGO’s…say how’s that nation-building going in Haiti, or in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or Kosovo…I understand that Kosovo hasn’t had any national elections or final determination of status yet…geeeez, all the while Iraq and Afghanistan have had several rounds of local, regional and national elections. Meaning that at least Bush’s “nation-building” made some progress, whilst the former version continues to muddle on to no good end…which was why Bush was opposed to it in the first place. But hey we won’t let those facts get in the way of your argument(s).

He and his puppet-master "Dick" also said plenty about massive stockpiles of anthrax, chemical wagons, WMD, aluminum tubes designed to become missiles, mushroom clouds and imminent attacks via Saddam.

Were you just as offended by his words as you appear to be about President Obama's?

As did John F Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and AlGore…from 1998 until 2003. Were you upset by their words, too Jeremy? Oh and there were what 23 reasons given in the AUMF and WMD’s were only some of the reasons. Again, don’t let REALITY interfere with your thinking. Really go get the cigs and beer and just save yourself.

In his new memoir, "Courage and Consequence," Political strategist Karl Rove says President George W. Bush made the right decision to launch the Iraq war in 2003, but the former White House adviser admits the failure to find weapons of mass destruction badly damaged the administration's credibility.

They, much like the rest of America and the world, relied on what Bush provided in the way of intelligence.

He skewed the information to support his position, and we've been paying for it ever since.

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

Please note the Clinton quotes are FROM BEFORE BUSH...was that crafty BusHitler capable of skewing the Intelligence PRIOR TO HIS Election?

What does that have to do with "nation building?"

I explained that, PRIOR to 9/11 nation-building was a JOKE, as noted by the fact that the then-current nations being built were and are still basket cases, whereas the nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan has been far more successful.

And if 9/11 was the rationale for getting involved in the Mideast, why go into Iraq instead of searching out the people who actually perpetrated the crime?

Funny where is AQ and the Taliban, oh that's right STILL OUT OF POWER AND HIDING IN CAVES. Looks like we DID go after some of the people who attacked us. Saddam was also a threat to the US interests, lives and safety...or ahve you forgotten the money Saddam paid to the Intifada Bombers? Or the contacts between AQ and Iraq, PRIOR tot he war?

They, much like the rest of America and the world, relied on what Bush provided in the way of intelligence.

The president doesn't provide intelligence, dipshit. The president is briefed on intelligence gathered by the intelligence organizations and decides what to do with it. Also, your boy Kerry was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee during the 1999-2000 Congress, which gave him access to the collected intel on Iraq's WMD programs well in advance of Bush taking office...and Kerry seemed pretty convinced.

I realize President Obama would love to get everybody out within a specific time period, he's spent a great deal of time conferring and obviously accepting recommendations from his military leaders that run contrary to his hoped for plans.

Yet these were the same things the military experts were stating during campaign season yet that didn't stop Obama from demagouging the war in Iraq as a waste and how we was going to bring the troops home once elected. This was a big issue if you remember, much more so than health care.

Ironically a good majority of those that voted for him actually believed he was going to give the order to withdraw from Iraq as soon as he was in office (much like closing down Gitmo) and now we're in his second year in office and we're still in Iraq (with the commanders on the ground hedging we may be there longer).

So we can conclude one of two things from this: (1) Obama had no idea what the realities of the Iraq war were and had his Come to Jesus moment when he took office and was briefed on the situation or (2) Knew he was just pandering to the idiot rubes knowing that running on the opposite of Iraq was the path to the White House and that once he was in, he was in.

In other words, he was either ignorantly uninformed (an unacceptable condition for one running for the presidency) or simply lied. I'm going with lied.

Princess Sarah during a speech in Alberta, Canada (where, by the way, she and her family get some of their health care)

LOL! You are aware, aren't you, that Wasilla, Alaska (where Palin's family lives), and Edmonton, Alberta (the nearest large town in Alberta), are almost 2,000 miles apart by road, right? Which is a bit over 1,400 miles as the crow flies, or almost exactly the same distance as Seattle, Washington, is from Wasilla. Somehow I doubt that the Palin's get any significant part of their health care in Alberta.

Blue@9 said... "is just further evidence that the left has no coherent foreign policy. It's all based on fantasist pipe-dreams about conducting an idealist and ethical foreign policy"

The left claims everything they want / do is moral (and conservatives are evil) but the fact is Obama has a rather immoral foreign policy. He throws our moral friends / allies under the bus (who are mostly free countries) and sucks up to dictatorships. This is not moral. Obama's inability to see what he is doing is wrong is a type of moral blindness and/or like some leftists he might identify more with America's enemies... than us....

- He provided a valuable talking point against the race hustlers. Barack Obama became President, so how do you still get to to use race or racism as an excuse? No one serious will take that excuse seriously any more. (Expect it to still be taken seriously by journalists, college professors, and some teenage girls though.)

- He may have finally taught stupid Republicans not to nominate the oldest, most boring guy in the party just because he fought in a war 50 years ago. You think they would have learned that from Bob Dole's candidacy, but that didn't hurt bad enough I guess.

- By lengthening the current depression, Barack Obama may finally cause the fiscal collapse of the big government states. They are finally running out of other people's money. The looters may actually have to produce something or starve. Either way the rest of us are better off.

- We can stop using "slippery slope" arguments now that the government has nationalized the car industry and the home mortgage industry and the student loan business and is 10 days from nationalizing health care. Yeah, we told you so. Thanks for making us right all along Barack.

- For being the archetypal elitist and filling the government with academics. The failure of "the smart people" might actually result in an opportunity for "the effective people" to solve some problems.

He saved us from McCain. With McCain, we'd have had a cap and trade bill. We'd have had an amnesty that drew millions across the border at a time when people were looking for someone to blame for their woes. We'd not have gotten anything remotely conservative done. Instead of becoming more pro-life, we'd be less. Instead of the tea parties, the Bush hatred would have reached new levels of violence and disconnection with society.

If healthcare fails, Iran doesn't get a nuke that is later used, and we don't get the EFCA, America will have dodged a bullet in electing Obama. I'm ready to be more grateful for being wrong than I have ever been in my life.

Joe - I realize President Obama would love to get everybody out within a specific time period, he's spent a great deal of time conferring and obviously accepting recommendations from his military leaders that run contrary to his hoped for plans.

BS, Jeremy. The Status of Forces Agreement was signed by Bush with Iraq before he left office. Basically it was Bush who has already consulted with military commanders and set up the schedule and agreement to pull out of Iraq by 2011.

ALL that Obama is doing is following Bush's plan - he could accelerate the pace of the withdrawal but Petraeus and Co will never agree to such nonsense just so he can please his leftist base.

Obama MORONICALLY suggested that the withdrawal from Iraq should start from March 2008! Not to mention he NEVER acknowledged the success of the Iraqi surge while campaigning for President

For ALL of Bush's faults, he was right to order the surge and sign a SoF Agreement with Iraq before the end of his Presidency so that Obama would not have a huge headache.

Jeremy, liberals like you should not whine about conservative complaints about Obama. It is NOTHING compared to the abuse that was heaped on Bush on a daily basis. You liberals will get as much consideration as you gave Bush. Nothing more, nothing less.

In other words, he was either ignorantly uninformed (an unacceptable condition for one running for the presidency) or simply lied. I'm going with lied.

@Arturius, You are correct - he was lying. No one who is running to be Commander in Chief can afford to be that ignorant and uninformed about the single biggest issue in US and world politics that even made Obama's candidacy possible.

Ofcourse Obama KNEW that he was going to demagogue the issue to death - and i suspect that most people who were opposed to the war but knew the difficulties that come with a rapid withdrawal also knew that Obama was simply lying.

Your chief concern revolves around whether America blusters and swaggers clumsily enough in its belligerence to merit the consternation of the world.

What a load of BS - Ritmo, first you stop pretending that you have special insights into what concerns conservatives about Obama's foreign policy.

If you had an intellectual honesty (very hard to expect from a leftist like you), you would know that conservatives strongly believe in American exceptionalism and Obama doesnt - this is key to the differences between us.

Stop acting like Sigmund Freud and have the honesty to admit that condervatives and modern day liberals have completely different but honest opinions on what America's role in global affairs should be.

We dont need any more shrinks in America - a lot of them already exist.

3. He got a dog. 4. He put a kitchen garden in the White House grounds (which, even if you don't like it, can be easily removed), and he has done nothing worse or more permanent than that to put his mark on the people's house. (lets NOT talk this one up, it might give him ideas!)5. He had at least enough class and/or marketing saavy to call Dick Cheney and wish him a speedy recovery.

I am not really grateful to Obama for anything. I never did trust the guy...but the wars were supported by both parties in the beginning. The Iraqi Liberation Act and the votes for the war resolutions make that plain. The Democrats are just completely political. They openly support a war when it is in their political interests to do so. If Iraq turns out to be a success, we will be hearing how it was really Clinton's idea because he was the one who refused to turn Saddam lose in the 90s and because he got the Iraqi Liberation Act passed. If it falls apart, they will go back to blaming Bush.

-No right winger has ever energized the conservative base this well. -Gun and ammo sales have never been stronger. -No one has better exposed the fatal flaws of liberalism. -No president has illustrated the need for prudent fiscal policy more dramatically. -No president has ever debunked the credibility of Keynesian economics so well. -No Republican has ever described the crass political depravity of the Democrat party in mere words as well as Obama has done by example. -Citizen activism is at a high not seen since the 60's.

Just out of curiosity - and not to belittle the losses, but given that the third national election in Iraq just happened this weekend, can someone cite for me another time when it took ONLY 4,000 (we'll call it 8,000 and include good Iraqis) lives and 60,000 wounded to take a country from mass-murdering totalitarian state to pluralistic democracy of 30 million people in a part of the world where such a thing was alien in so short a time?

That is, if you're going to call the Iraq Campaign a disaster, by what relative measure are you using?

Absolute measures don't tell you anything, because you have to compare them to some other standard. If you lost that many people to free 1 million, maybe you'd call it a disaster. But what if it freed 100 million? We lost 600,000 to free 4 million people here. Granted it was a more generally oppressive form of slavery, but the number killed and wounded to the number freed is vastly greater in the American Civil War, and it is considered a success.

In other words, if all you have is infantile invective for people who disagree - and I'm looking at you, Jeremy - by what standard is it so self-evident that Iraq was a mistake?

P.S. "You're just a wingnut" doesn't get you very far. Maybe an inch or two on your right hand, or one of those retrievers, but that's about it.

3. By being so tone deaf and arrogant, Obama continues to destroy the Democratic Party. Unlike Clinton, who could fake enough humility to get people to forgive his errors, Obama will keep up pushing unpopular programs and policies until his Party is totally discredited.